The question isn't whether or not a representative discussion "could" be held, it's whether it happens or not. Letter was held up as an example of nuanced discussion, the specific example given was one-sided.

No justification of it being one-sided has actually been given, merely assertions of that.

The conversation in question was, in fact, an expansion of an extended disagreement on twitter that got derailed by a bunch of gendercrits deciding to scream at Helen until she had to lock her account.

If you're curious as to the actual conversation, I'd suggest reading it on letter for yourself.